The fears around concussion and head injuries in young players has led to calls for tackling to be banned at a school level. It has also no doubt caused some parents to rush to the shops to buy protective headgear for their children to wear during games and training.

But as our recent research shows, wearing protective headgear may actually result in an increased risk of injury. This means that at the youth level, parents may insist on their child wearing headgear in the belief they are helping to reduce the injury risk, when in fact the opposite could be true.

Reckless tackling

Previous research already shows that although headgear may protect against minor superficial head injuries – such as lacerations and abrasions – it does not reduce the incidence of concussion.

Similarly, our new research, published in BMJ Open Sport & Exercise Medicine found that some rugby players seem to wear protective headgear to give them the confidence not to worry about getting injured. And that as a result, players may display reckless tackling behaviours that may increase the risk of serious injuries such as concussions.

Education in the correct tackle technique is key for junior players. Shutterstock.

But the issue of concussion in rugby is not just limited to the youth game. The highest incidence of rugby-related concussions is seen at the community or sub-elite level which is the largest section of adults who play rugby.

So if tackling was banned in schools, it could mean that many players choosing to play at this adult level may not have experienced fundamental coaching on how to tackle. This is an important point, because research based on South African youth players found that poor tackle technique is more likely to result in a tackle leading to a head injury.

Given this, and the fact that most injuries in rugby occur during the tackle (up to 64%), rather than an outright ban on tackling, strategies aimed at making the tackle safer appear to make the most sense.

Coaching the tackle

In this way, player and coach education strategies to reduce injury rates have been found to be effective – particularly with youth players. Most notably the RugbySmart scheme in New Zealand and the BokSmart scheme in South Africa. The two schemes share similar programme structures and aim to educate coaches and referees in an attempt to prevent serious injuries to players. The Boksmart intervention, for example, resulted in a 40% reduction in catastrophic injuries in a group of junior players.

Tackling injury risk in youth players. Shutterstock.

Correct head placement, using the shoulder, and driving the legs in contact have all been found to be technique factors associated with a reduced risk of a concussive tackle. Which is why initiatives aimed at coaches, teachers and referees should focus on ensuring safe tackling behaviours are adopted and retained by youth players.

And positively, research has actually found that junior players value tackle training and the time spent on techniques to help reduce injury. This is encouraging because children who are taught correct technique from a young age are more likely to retain safe tackle behaviours if they continue to play rugby. And this of course helps to reduce injury rates, and makes the sport safer at all levels of the game.

]]>https://sciblogs.co.nz/guestwork/2017/10/25/rugby-headgear-increase-injury-risk/feed/0Rugby pros feel the pain later in life, but no regretshttps://sciblogs.co.nz/news/2017/09/29/rugby-pros-feel-pain-no-regrets/
https://sciblogs.co.nz/news/2017/09/29/rugby-pros-feel-pain-no-regrets/#respondThu, 28 Sep 2017 18:45:55 +0000https://sciblogs.co.nz/?p=246554Elite rugby players are a pretty fit and healthy bunch, but new research suggests the strain of top-level rugby can take its toll on the body later in life.

A new University of Oxford study, published today in Scientific Reports, finds that retired elite rugby players are more likely to suffer from osteoporosis, osteoarthritis, joint replacement, and site-specific joint replacement at the hip and knee, compared to average people of the same age. The authors also found that rugby players were twice as likely to report problems related to mobility and pain or discomfort.

The research is based on a health survey of over 250 retired elite UK rugby players, with the results compared to survey data from the general population.

While the increased pain and joint problems is a concern, it’s not all negative; the authors also noted rugby players were less likely than the general population to suffer diabetes or high blood pressure.

The researchers recommend providing targeted osteoarthritis education and advice to retiring elite players. They also say more research is needed to understand exactly how playing high-level rugby contributes to later joint and bone problems – and how to prevent them.

Similar results in NZ rugby

Lead researcher of the NZ Rugby Health study, Prof Patria Hume from AUT.

The study was based on players in the UK, but the findings line up with data from New Zealand. The NZ Rugby Health study conducted in 2015 also found that ex-professional rugby players had far higher rates of arthritis than people of the same age who played non-contact sports like cricket or hockey. Thirty-six percent of elite rugby players in the study reported they had arthritis, while only five percent of people who played non-contact sports suffered arthritis (the baseline rate for New Zealanders of a similar age is between 13 and 25 percent).

In light of the new Oxford study, the Science Media Centre put some questions to the lead researcher of the NZ study, Professor Patria Hume from the AUT School of Sport & Recreation:

Are these health issues linked to the high-impact nature of rugby?

“We do not know. The cross-sectional study design does not allow researchers to state any cause and effect relationship in either the NZ Rugby Health study or the UK study.”

Are there ways to mitigate the harm?

“High loads to joints may result in joint tissue damage which theoretically could progress to osteoarthritis. However, there is no cause and effect evidence for sport leading to osteoarthritis to date. Longitudinal studies taking into account the multiple factors that might influence arthritis (e.g. diet, access to medical treatment, load intensity and volume) have not been conducted.”

Worth it?

Given the increased incidence of painful physical conditions in older age, you might think the retired rugby players carried a sense of regret about their involvement in the sport. That’s not the case, the UK paper reports:

Rugby participants were asked whether considering the risks and benefits of their previous participation in rugby, they would do the same again, and 94% of rugby participants either agreed, or strongly agreed.

Likewise in the 2015 New Zealand study:

As part of the research, retired players were asked – given what they know now about their health and the risks involved in their sport – whether they would choose to do it all over again if they could travel back in time to the beginning of their sports career. The answer was absolutely. The average rating was 4.6 ±1.1, using a rating scale of 1=no way and 5=absolutely.

We found little evidence of performance-lifting effects of nicotine use in most published studies.

Nicotine without smoke

Together with caffeine, nicotine is considered the most widely used psychoactive substance in the world. It is more potent and more addictive than caffeine.

In the sporting world, particularly in team sports, between a third and a half of professional athletes use nicotine. Sportspeople claim that it helps prevent a dry mouth, control body weight and improve concentration and attention.

Some chew tobacco in its moist form known as snus or inhale a dry powder called snuff. Others use nicotine patches, gum, nasal sprays, lozenges or tablets.

Keen soccer fans may remember media reports last year of Leicester City’s Jamie Vardy, after he was pictured in his England jersey, holding an energy drink and pouch of chewing tobacco. This is nothing unusual for America’s major league baseball fans who witness their idols chewing or dipping tobacco.

Nicotine use in winter sports

Smokeless tobacco has been associated with baseball since its inception, and despite being replaced by smoking in the 1950s, returned in the late 1970s. By 2003, the number of major league players regularly using smokeless tobacco was 36 percent.

Ice-hockey is another sport where reports have emerged of 30 to 50 percent of players actively using nicotine. Other professional sports with higher than average (average being the roughly 25 percent worldwide prevalence of smoking tobacco) use of nicotine immediately before or during a game are reported by the Swiss Laboratory for Doping Analyses as American football, bobsleigh, gymnastics, rugby and skiing.

Research into nicotine so far has mostly centred on its pharmacodynamics and smoking cessation. Despite its widespread use among athletes, there has been little research into whether it does actually affect sporting performance, and none into whether it can pose a health risk to this population.

Performance effects

In our research we have excluded studies that involved tobacco smoking or smokers. The rationale was that we already known that smoking kills about six million people worldwide each year, and that smoked tobacco reduces aerobic and muscular performance. Considerably fewer elite athletes smoke, compared to the general population.

The majority of the ten studies that investigated nicotine use in athletes found no effect on performance (either good or bad). However, two of the five studies that tested nicotine in patches and gum found that it improved exercise endurance and muscular strength. Also interesting was that of the five studies that reported negative side effects with nicotine (e.g. coughing, sneezing, sore throat, increased heart rate, nausea and dizziness), none reduced exercise performance, and two of these actually found improved performance.

The unknowns of nicotine use

It is what hasn’t been tested yet that is probably more worthwhile thinking about. For example, unless you are a current tobacco user, you would be pharmacologically naïve to the drug and your body would respond quite differently to the regular user.

Many athletes stick to the mantra that if some is good, more is better, but with nicotine this could have the opposite effect. At lower doses it acts as a stimulant, but at higher doses it can be a depressant.

Some serious unknowns remain regarding long-term use and both mental and physical health. There is some evidence of increased risk to developing cardiovascular and metabolic diseases, promoting tumours and impaired wound healing. Nicotine use also occurs concurrently with several mental health disorders.

More evidence needed

Nicotine’s legal status for athletes is currently clear: it is not prohibited. The World Anti-Doping Agency is monitoring its use by athletes, presumably to determine whether there is potential for misuse and to determine whether its use could be altering the spirit of sports.

Certainly, more research is needed to determine the effect of nicotine on athletes in terms of performance enhancement, and health and wellbeing. However, there’s an interesting philosophical and ethical question about who should be funding and driving such research.

Should it be tobacco companies, which have effectively created and cultivated a nicotine-fueled problem, or the pharmaceutical companies that profit handsomely from trying to remedy the effects of tobacco use?

One thing remains clear with regards to nicotine and its use in sports: more evidence is required before anti-doping and governing bodies could consider promoting, coordinating and monitoring any effort against nicotine-containing substances.

]]>https://sciblogs.co.nz/guestwork/2017/08/10/nicotine-sports/feed/0Olympic Rivalries: Battle of the same-sexeshttps://sciblogs.co.nz/news/2016/08/12/olympic-rivalries-battle-sexes/
https://sciblogs.co.nz/news/2016/08/12/olympic-rivalries-battle-sexes/#respondFri, 12 Aug 2016 03:22:09 +0000https://sciblogs.co.nz/?p=232620This Olympic season Michael Phelps has been unmatched as the most decorated Olympian of all time, though there has still been media scrutiny surrounding his ‘glaring’ rivalry with Chad le Clos of South Africa.Professor J Benenson of Harvard University

Rivalries like Phelps and le Clos’ have been making a splash at Rio, and close attention has been paid to how athletes behave towards their opponents. A new study recently published in Current Biology, suggests bad sportsmanship between rivals is rooted in animal instinct.

By observing the behaviour of athletes after a professional sports match, Harvard University Professor of Psychology Joyce Benenson found moments of triumph or loss were very similar to behaviour she observed in the animal kingdom.

Benenson spent years studying the conflict resolution in groups of chimpanzees. Her curiosity in the subject was piqued after seeing male chimpanzees act relatively friendly to their rivals in the wake of a conflict. This contrasted with the cold-shoulder treatment she saw between female chimps after a fight. Benenson wondered if the same could be true in humans.

Benenson watched hours of online videos of the social interactions between athletes following professional sports matches to see how humans act in situations of conflict. The study looked at three years’ worth of videos of table tennis, badminton, tennis and boxing, altogether observing athletes from 44 countries.

Swimming with Sharks

You only have to look at Michael Phelps’ game face prior the 200-metre butterfly semi-finals to see why Benenson thought, despite the neat outcomes and clear rules, sport could be studied as a modern outlet for aggressive primal combat.

In 2012, Le Clos’ victory over Phelps in the 200-metre butterfly was one of the worst defeats in Phelps’ career, and shortly preceded his announcement he was retiring from swimming. The bad blood between the two didn’t last long; they still planned a shark-cage diving trip together in South Africa in 2013.

Some have said Phelps’ motivation to return to the sport was driven by the hope to avenge his loss to le Clos in 2012. At the warm-up for this year’s Olympic 200-metre butterfly, it was clear the rivalry had heated back up. Phelps’ mouth was scrunched into a tight frown as he stared intently at Le Clos, the man who edged him out of a gold medal in his signature event by five-hundredths of a second.

When Phelps won the 200-m butterfly this year by four hundredths of a second, it was the smallest margin in the event’s history. He raised his arms in triumph at the pool’s edge and beckoned into the air as if to encourage the thundering applause. In the next lane over, le Clos’ came to terms with his fourth place standing, which failed to get him onto the podium. The two embraced in the pool as le Clos congratulated Phelps on his win.

The Warrior Hypothesis

Benenson watched the videos on sporting events for hours, looking to see whether athletes gestured conciliatorily, or made physical contact with their opponents after the match. The results of Benenson’s study were the same regardless of where the athletes were from, or what sport they played—men were more likely to peacefully engage with their opponent beyond the obligatory post-match handshake than women—possibly because men more often value what they have to lose if the relationship goes south.

This idea was in line with the ‘warrior’ hypothesis, Benenson said, which says men have to work hard to patch up any hard feelings after a fight or risk being weaker as a team against future outside threats.

Testing Cooler Waters

The world-wide doping situation has made Rio’s Olympic pool a prime location for athletes to settle the score.

In contrast to the heated rivalry between Phelps and le Clos, the waters between female swimmers, Lilly King of the USA and Yulia Efimova of Russia were much icier.

King and Efimova had never faced off before, but Efimova’s ties to the Russian doping scandal struck a nerve with King. Efimova tested positive for meldonium this past March, but was permitted to compete. Efimova was beaten by King, who said her win in the 100-metre breaststroke was ‘a victory for clean sport’.

Post-race, King impulsively splashed Efimova before swimming over to embrace teammate Katie Meili who came third, and otherwise ignored the silver-medallist. “I don’t think she really wanted to be congratulated by me at that point,” King said, “so I figured I should stay out of it.”

Benenson suggested traditional gender roles have shaped our response to conflict from far back in our evolution. “We believe that human social structure resembles that of chimpanzees in which males cooperate in groups of unrelated same-sex peers and females cooperate more with family members and one or two good friends who act as family,” said Benenson in a media release.

So if you’ve made a habit of noticing unsporting behaviour after Olympic matches this week, it could just be chalked up to animal instinct.

]]>https://sciblogs.co.nz/news/2016/08/12/olympic-rivalries-battle-sexes/feed/0Ethics and the doping scandal – a responsehttps://sciblogs.co.nz/open-parachute/2016/08/07/ethics-and-the-doping-scandal/
https://sciblogs.co.nz/open-parachute/2016/08/07/ethics-and-the-doping-scandal/#respondSat, 06 Aug 2016 21:00:39 +0000https://sciblogs.co.nz/?p=232383International Olympic Committee (IOC) decisions about participation of athletes from the Russian Federation in the Rio Olympics have brought both criticism and support – from the political as well as the sporting communities.

The issues of sports doping, the responsibilities and actions of sporting bodies and the political context and factors all need discussing. So I am pleased to see a Guest Work blog post at SciBlogs from Ian Culpan discussing the ethical questions involved (see Ethics, Doping the Olympics and Russia).

But I think the article missed important ethical considerations and I do not think the issue can properly be discussed without these. To me the following ethical and legal principles, which Ian did not discuss, are central:

Proper testing of claims and evidence;

Presumption of innocence until proven guilty;

Inadmissibility of collective punishment

Avoiding direct or implied political direction in decision-making.

A brief background

The Russian Federation does have a problem with sports doping. It should be in everyone’s interests for this to be dealt with. Interestingly, the Russian national officials and politicians do appear to be cooperating with international sports bodies. They have transferred testing of athletes to non-Russian laboratories. Officials (including the deputy Minister of Sport) implicated by Richard McLaren’s World Anti-Doping Authority (WADA) commissioned report have been suspended pending investigation. The President himself has urged officials not to react defensively but to deal with the problem.

Grigory Rodchenkov, Russia’s sacked anti-doping lab director. Considered a criminal in Russia and a “whistle blower” in USA. Credit: Emily Berl for The New York Times

Grigory Rodchenkov, the former head of Moscow’s anti-doping laboratory, was a key figure in the current scandal. He was taking bribes to supply illegal drugs to athletes and (apparently) to enable falsification of test results. When he was sacked and criminal proceeding taken against him he fled to the US. Now treated as a “whistle blower” instead of a criminal he made charges implicating higher officials in the doping scandal. His claims made in a May New York Times article (see Russian Doctor Explains How He Helped Beat Doping Tests at the Sochi Olympics) sparked the decision of the WADA to commission the McLaren report.

Richard McLaren’s report effectively supports Rodchenkov’s claims and found Rodchenkov to be trustworthy. But this appears to be McLaren’s opinion, rather than a conclusion based on testing of claims and evidence. There was no attempt to interview officials in the Russian Federation which is surely required for a proper evaluation. And results of the “forensic testing” commissioned by McLaren (DNA data and testing the methods for removing and replacing seals on sample vials and scratches on the vials) are not even included in the report. We are asked simply to accept his judgment on these.

I agree, the time limit of 57 days may well be to blame but in the absence of presentation of the forensic evidence, relying on the claims of an obvious criminal and lack of any consideration of evidence from Russian officials I think Culpan’s judgment the report “seems to contain irrefutable evidence” is just not valid. To interpret a situation where there had been no opportunity given to refute as meaning the evidence was “irrefutable” is hardly fair. Or ethical.

The reliability of the McLaren report and the information he gathered appears to be unravelling – according to articles in The Australian (unfortunately behind a pay wall but see WADA ‘sexed up’ anti-Russia case, implicated clean athletes – Australian media, citing officials). These claim the president of the Australian Olympic Committee, John Coates, who is also an IOC vice president, wrote to Australia’s Health Minister Susan Ley, saying that the IOC had a “lack of confidence in WADA.” There are also problems with the list of “implicated” Russian athletes not named in McLaren’s report but provided to the sporting federations by McLaren. The Australian cites a senior sports official as saying “We were asked to make a judgment about Russian competitors based on McLaren’s report but without having any of the detail to understand the significance of them being named.”

Unwarranted judgments are easily made in the context of the current geopolitical struggle and the resulting information war. They can have consequences which are hardly ethical and I think Richard McLaren himself is concerned about this. He said recently:

“The focus has been completely lost and the discussion is not about the Russian labs and Sochi Olympic Games, which was under the direction of the IOC.”

“But what is going on is a hunt for people supposed to be doping but that was never part of my work, although it is starting to (become) so.’’

“My reporting on the state-based system has turned into a pursuit of individual athletes.’’

This treatment of individual Russian athletes, which was described as being like a “Stalinist witch hunt” by one commentator, is what concerns me. I think this raises ethical issues.

Credit: Flickr / Dmitry Dzhus

Presumption of innocence

This seems so fundamental to our legal (and ethical) system I just cannot see why critics of the IOC have been so prepared to ignore it – or worse, knowingly violate the principle.

Many Russian athletes who have never had a positive drug test have been denied the opportunity to participate in the Rio Olympics. The criteria applied to other Russian athletes has been much harsher than for other nations with sometimes impossible demands being made to prove a long history of clean test results. While athletes from other nations who have been found guilty in the past of doping and “served their time” in suspension are able to compete this is not the case for Russian athletes.

These clean athletes justifiably ask “Why me?” Russian sports fans may well be thoroughly disappointed by this scandal and particularly with athletes and officials who have found to be guilty of doping. But you can understand they are also angry at the unfairness of such discriminatory and unethical judgments made against their clean athletes.

Collective punishment

Punishing clean athletes for the crimes of those who used doping is simply collective punishment. It brings to mind the actions of Nazi occupiers in Eastern Europe who killed innocent villagers (or in some cases killed entire villages) as collective punishment for the actions of partisans. For the life of me, I cannot see how those critics who believe that the entire Russian Olympic Team should have been punished for the (as yet unproven) crimes of some officials consider they occupy the “moral high ground” as Culpan appears to argue.

Not that collective punishment is anything new when it comes the history of staging important international events by the Russian Federation (and the previous USSR). In the 1980s we saw boycotts of the Moscow and San Francisco Olympics. Attempts at collective punishment of entire nations because of disagreements in the international political arena.

There were attempts to inject political issues into the Sochi Olympics, and even promoting the idea of boycotts, and who seriously doubts that there will be political attempts to harm, or even prevent, the 2018 World Football Cup in the Russian Federation.

Yet, international sporting and cultural events offer great opportunities to encourage goodwill and understanding between nations. They should not be used as weapons in the geopolitical struggle – because that, in turn, only enhances that struggle and harms peace.

Political motivations can prevent a solution

Fortunately, the IOC avoided a blanket ban on athletes from the Russian Federation, despite coming under political pressure to do so. The consequences of such an unprecedented and radical step may have been unpredictable but include a possible break-up of the Olympic movement. This would not have solved the sports doping problem.

As things stand there is now room for progress in a proper investigation of the charges made by Rodchenkov – particularly those suggesting the involvement of state officials. Such serious charges, made by someone facing criminal action, should not be left as they are without a proper balanced investigation. And this investigation must involve officials and legal bodies from the Russian Federation. It is hardly surprising that McLaren’s report is now being described as unfinished. The Australian articles reported IOC spokesman Mark Adams as saying:

“To have someone who didn’t (commit) a competition doping offence but was counted as such is a very dangerous thing. We encourage a full report by Professor McLaren before we make any full and frank ­decisions.’’”

Surely such a proper investigation will have more chance of eliminating Russian sports doping and corruption than external allegations primarily based on claims made by someone fleeing criminal proceedings.

Finally, we should not allow the current concentration on Russian sports doping to fool us into thinking it is only, or even primarily, a Russian problem. The fact is that sports doping is world-wide and there is plenty of evidence that international sporting bodies themselves are not free from corruption.

I presented the most recent official data from WADA n my article Quantifying the problem of international sports doping. This showed that the proportion of positive doping tests for Russian athletes was just less than average for the whole world. More importantly, there are a number of nations with a higher proportion of positive doping tests than the Russian Federation – including India, France, Belgium, Mexico and Turkey.

Yes, the data was for 2014. It did not (could not) cover the current Russian doping scandal or the McLaren report. But let’s not rely on an unethical presumption of guilt to discredit the data.

Let’s not allow geopolitical differences and prejudices get in the way of battling the sports doping problem.

And let’s not allow such differences to lead us to ignore important ethical principles.

The recent scandal over the Russian doping situation and the International Olympic Committee’s (IOC) subsequent decision regarding Russian athletes’ participation in the Olympic Games has created widespread interest, not only from those interested and/or committed to sport, but from the wider global community.

An ethical dilemma

All concerned waited with baited breath for the decision which, one way or other, would demonstrate the ‘intestinal fortitude’ and resolve by the IOC to confront the issue and demonstrate determined and forthright leadership. The IOC have had the opportunity to take the ‘moral high ground’. The question continues to circulate; did the IOC demonstrate the strong ethical leadership that was expected of them?

In facing such an ethical dilemma the IOC was confronted with a number of considerations that needed careful analysis. Firstly, the Richard McLaren, Independent Person WADA Investigation of Sochi Allegations (The Report) seems to contain irrefutable evidence that the Moscow Laboratory operated within a State-controlled failsafe systematic doping operation that enabled ‘doped’ Russian athletes to compete at the Sochi Games with impunity. This systematic doping was not restricted to the Sochi Winter Olympians. It extended to a large section of high performance athletes in the Russian sports system and clearly involved those intending to compete at Rio.

In being confronted with this evidence the IOC was clearly forced to act.

The International Olympic Committee decided to allow some Russian athletes to compete. Was it ethically right? Credit: Wikimedia / NEI.

These documents, along with advice from sport lawyers and ethical philosophers, one could reasonably assume that these sources of information would have been thoroughly analysed. An analysis of such documentation gives a ‘muddied’ insight into the IOC’s decision. In the first instance, the IOC would probably have discussed the needed ethical decision in light of a deontological position – that is, what is ethically right or wrong according to their laws, rules, regulations, philosophy, principles, policies and practices.

Determining whether the IOC rules and policies etc. have been breached, one would speculate that the decision would be straight forward. Furthermore, one could justifiably assume that responsibility for determining this would rest with the IOC. However, the documentation, identified above, has conflicting and confusing messages.

For instance, the Olympic Charter states that the IOC is the supreme authority on all things ‘Olympic’. Furthermore, it states that any person or organisation belonging to the Olympic Movement is bound by the provisions of the Olympic Charter. The same Charter states that the one of the missions and roles of the IOC is to “protect clean athletes’” and that the Olympic Games brings together athletes selected by their National Olympic Committees, (NOCs), whose entries have been accepted by the IOC. It also states on the other hand that the NOC’s must adopt and implement the World Ant-Doping Code. Further on the Olympic Charter states that one of the roles of the International Federations (IF), within the Olympic Movement, is to “establish and enforce, in accordance with the Olympic spirit, the rules concerning the practice of their respective sports…”.

Who is responsible?

Within these statements clear dilemmas emerge. The dilemma emerges, not as to whether the laws, rules, regulations, policies etc of the IOC have been breached, as it seems they clearly have, but rather who is responsible for adjudicating and sanctioning breaches on such matters. On the one hand, the IOC claims supreme authority, but on the other, it allocates responsibility for certain decisions on such matters to the NOC’s and the IF’s. Here lies the problem with the IOC’s decision. In this instance, they have passed responsibility to the IF. In doing so, we return to the expectation of all those interested in this situation. That expectation being the need for the IOC to demonstrate strong ethical leadership. Clearly the question remains as to whether this expectation has been met.

In making the decision arguably the IOC appears to have abandoned the expected responsible leadership. From a personal position it would seem that there is legitimate reasons for the decision being passed to the IF’s, but on the other hand, was this the ‘right’ thing to do in light of their own rules, laws and policies and their claim for supreme authority? I think not.

What does the most good?

In the second instance, the IOC would probably have considered this doping scandal from what is called, in ethical decision making, ‘a teleological position.’ This requires any decision to consider the ‘common good’. That is, what is the most desirable decision that can lead to an outcome that promotes the greatest good and the least possible harm? Here the IOC would need to consider such ‘good’ or ‘harm’ with the athlete in mind but, equally importantly, the integrity and protection of its own brand and the spirit of sport across the globe. Such considerations would need to speculate on the effect such a decision would have on the educative, social, economic, political and ethical value of the Olympic Movement (including the Games) and sport per se.

This consideration has probably taken place within a rushed time frame and the luxury of due diligence compromised. Here the problem arises as to whether the IOC’s decision is for the ‘greater good’, particularly, the greater good for sport and minimising the harm to sport. By sport, I refer to all forms of sport, not just elite sport and hopefully would include its educative, social and moral value.

An equally relevant consideration, using this approach, would be to consider which course of action enhances the IOC’s virtuous standing in the global community and whether this enhancement protects its global brand. Clearly in working towards a ruling the IOC needed to determine whether the decision made conformed to the universal ethical principles and values that its philosophy of Olympism espouses. I leave the reader to adjudicate on this.

What do the Olympic Games represent?

The Olympic flame burns bright at the 2014 Winter Games in Sochi, Russia. Flickr / american_rugbier

A third consideration that the IOC may have entered into is focused on a position of authenticity where personal and collective beliefs of the decision makers would need to be considered. Here individual integrities and beliefs about what they stand for would be examined in light of the issue. Contesting answers to the dilemma would have contributed to the decision, by clearly articulating a position of virtue. That is, any decision would have to clearly demonstrate what of kind of organisation the IOC wanted to be? and furthermore what do IOC members want the Olympic Games to represent now and in the future? Such thinking has a strong futurist orientation and one that involves considerable speculation without the luxury of time.

Clearly, the consequentialism of the IOC’s decision is yet to be played out. The world awaits with interest, as this decision, in my analysis, has the potential to determine the future sustainability of the educative and social value of sport particularly if it is seen as a ‘valued human practice’ in education and community initiatives, the future perceptions of the Olympic Games and of course the ethical standing of the IOC.

]]>https://sciblogs.co.nz/guestwork/2016/08/05/ethics-doping-olympic-russia/feed/1Ponting’s last inningshttps://sciblogs.co.nz/kidney-punch/2012/11/06/pontings-last-innings/
https://sciblogs.co.nz/kidney-punch/2012/11/06/pontings-last-innings/#commentsMon, 05 Nov 2012 20:51:24 +0000http://100dialysis.wordpress.com/?p=442Continue reading »]]>“Only as good as your last match” goes the cliché. This is true for Ricky Ponting and here is why. I recently published an article1 (Open Access ) on some new techniques being used in medical research which determine if making an additional measurement improves what we call “risk stratification.” In other words – does measuring substance X help us to rule in or rule out if someone had a disease or not. I got a bit board with talking about “biomarkers” and medical stuff, so when it came to presenting this at the Australian New Zealand Society of Nephrology’s annual conference I looked to answer the very important question: “Does Ricky Ponting’s last inning’s matter?”, or in Australian cricket jargon “Ponting, humph, he’s only as good as his last innings, mate.”

How did I do it?

I chose Australia winning a one-day international when chasing runs as an outcome (Win or Loss).

Using data available from Cricinfo I determined which of the following on its own predicts if Australia will win (ie which predicts the outcome better than just flipping a coin): (1) Who won the toss, (2) whether it is a day or night match, (3) whether it is a home or away match, (4) how many runs the opposition scored.

As it turned out if Australia lost the toss they were more likely to win (!), and, not surprisingly, the fewer runs the opposition scored the more likely they were to win. I then built a mathematical model. All this means is that I came up with an equation where the inputs were the winning or losing of the toss and the number of runs and the output was the probability of winning. This is called a “reference model.”

I added to this model Ricky Ponting’s last innings score and recalculatd the probability of Australia winning.

I then could calculate some numbers which told me that by adding Ricky Ponting’s last innings to the model I improved the model’s ability to predict a win and to predict a loss. Below is a graph which I came up with to illustrate this. I call this a Risk Assessment Plot.

So, when the shrimp hit the barbie, the beers are in the esky, and your mate sends down a flipper you can smack him over the fence for you now know that when Ricky Ponting scored well in his last innings, Australia are more likely to win.

The middle bit is the Risk Assessment Plot. The dotted lines tell us about the reference model. The solid lines tell us about the reference model + Ricky Ponting. The further apart the red and blue lines are the better. The red lines are derived from when Australia won, the blue lines from when the lost. If you follow the black lines with arrows you can see that by adding in Rick Ponting’s last innings the model the predicted probability (risk) of a win increases when Australia went on to win (a perfect model would have all these predictions equal to 1). Similarly the predicted probability of a loss gets smaller when Australia did lose (ideally all these predictions would equal 0).